Subject Matter: ASSOCIATIOAL STANDING

Relevant Codal Provisions/Doctrine (if given):

Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) v. Garcia

G.R. NO. 115381 / 23 December 1994
Ponente: Kapunan, J.

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari assails the constitutionality and validity of various memoranda,
circulars and/or orders of DOTC and LTFRB.

June 26, 1990 Secretary of DOTC (Oscar M. Orbos) issued Memorandum Circular No.
90-395 to then LTFRB Chairman (Remedios Fernando)

MC No. 90-935 allows provincial bus operators to charge passengers rates

within a range of 15% above and 15% below the LTFRB official rate for a
period of 1 year.

February 17, 1993 This range was later increased by LTFRB thru a MC No. 92-009 "The
existing authorized fare range system of plus or minus 15 per cent for
provincial buses and jeepneys shall be widened to 20% and -25% limit in
1994

March, 1994 Private respondent PBOAP, availing itself of the deregulation policy of the
DOTC allowing provincial bus operators to collect plus 20% and minus
25% of the prescribed fare without first having to file a petition for the
purpose and without the benefit of a public hearing, announced a fare
increase of twenty (20%) percent of the existing fares.

March 16, 1994 Petitioner KMU filed a petition before the LTFRB opposing the upward
adjustment of bus fares, which the LTFRB dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues:
1. Whether or Not the petitioner has legal standing to sue.
-YES. The requirement of locus standi inheres from the definition of judicial power.
Judicial power is the power to hear and decide causes pending between parties who have
the right to sue in the courts of law and equity.

One who is directly affected by and whose interest is immediate and substantial in
the controversy has the standing to sue. The rule therefore requires that a party must
show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can
be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court's
jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf.

Here, petitioner has shown that it has a clear legal right that was violated and
continues to be violated with the enforcement of the challenged
memoranda, circulars and/or orders.
 KMU members, who avail of the use of buses, trains and jeepneys every day, are directly
affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger fares. They are part of
the millions of commuters who comprise the riding public.

Certainly, their rights must be protected, not neglected nor ignored.

2. Whether or not the authority given by respondent LTFRB to provincial bus

operators to set a fare range of plus or minus fifteen (15%) percent, later
increased to plus twenty (20%) and minus twenty-five (-25%) percent, over
and above the existing authorized fare without having to file a petition for
the purpose, is unconstitutional, invalid and illegal.

YES. Under section 16(c) of the Public Service Act, the Legislature delegated to the
defunct Public Service Commission the power of fixing the rates of public services.
Respondent LTFRB, the existing regulatory body today, is likewise vested with the same
under Executive Order No. 202 dated June 19, 1987. However, nowhere under the
aforesaid provisions of law are the regulatory bodies, the PSC and LTFRB alike,
authorized to delegate that power to a common carrier, a transport operator, or other
public service.

Dispositive: The TRO issued on June 20, 1994 is MADE PERMANENT. No pronouncement as
to costs.